Two cases recently decided by New Jersey's Appellate Division addressed a statute which was previously thought to provide immunity to 911 operators engaged in the course of their employment. The Appellate Division in Massachi v. City of Newark Police Department and Wilson v. City of Jersey City held that 911 operators and dispatchers could be held liable for injuries sustained or proximately cause by their failure to adhere to established protocols and guidelines. In Massachi, a female student was abducted directly outside the Seton Hall University Campus in South Orange, New Jersey. Two of her friends immediately called 911 to report the abduction. The 911 operator failed to follow the appropriate departmental procedures and guidelines in that although she put the information into the 911 computer system, she failed to note the last known location of the abductor's car, failed to note that the car was in motion, failed to record the vehicle's path of travel and mis-identified the car as a Chevy Blazer as opposed to a Plymouth Blazer. Further, she failed to keep the person reporting the crime on the phone to enable to provide an update to the responding unit.

In addition to the above, two off-duty Essex County Sheriff's Officers also witnessed the abduction and also called 911. The 911 operator that they spoke with ran the license plate of the abductor's vehicle and printed out the name and address of the vehicle's owner. Unfortunately, he failed to issue a general alert to all police units in neighboring municipalities and also failed to contact the police in the municipality where the abductor resided. It was the plaintiff's decedent's claim that the girl who was abducted was ultimately murdered due to the fact that the police units could not properly respond as a result of the 911 dispatcher's failure to comply with guidelines.

Importantly, a New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 52:17C-10) provides various immunities to phone carriers and dispatchers concerning the failure of the 911 system. The Appellate Division under the two cases before it, specifically held that the above-referenced statute does not afford immunity to the 911 emergency communication center or its employees where they negligently render 911 services including dispatching police to an incorrect location, failing to keep the caller on the line to update the police of the location of the perpetrator and for failing to broadcast an alert to surround municipalities. Accordingly, although there is immunity for the failure of the system to work, there will be no immunity for 911 operators or dispatchers where they fail to follow protocol.

In the event you or a family member believes you have suffered injuries as a result of improper actions of a 911 operator, it is imperative that you seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney.

The Boston Herald hasreported that a lawsuit was recently filed against Disney World by a Pennsylvania woman who claims she was improperly touched and groped by a Donald Duck character while she was on vacation in Disney World.

The plaintiff's lawsuit claims that she sought an autograph from Donald Duck while on Disney World's property and, instead of obtaining the autograph, she was groped and molested by the costumed bird. The lawsuit alleges that Disney World, through its employees, were guilty of "negligence, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress." It is not known the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries as a result of the incident.

Importantly, while the nature of this lawsuit seems bizarre, the plaintiff's cause of action is viable. The law in the State of New Jersey and in most jurisdictions reveals that a lawsuit based on "assault and battery" will be viable if there is any "non-consensual" touching by one person of another. Although "assault and battery" conjures imaging of being punched, kicked, attacked or beat up with some inanimate object, it is simply defined as any non-consensual contact between one person and another that causes harm. Thus, although we do not know the nature and extent of the plaintiff's harm caused by Donald Duck, one can imagine "uninvited" or "non-consensual" contact between a person in a Disney costume and a park visitor merely seeking an autograph or photograph of the character. It should be noted that the varying degrees of "damages" in such suits range from mere emotional distress to physical injuries. Of course, juries and courts will perceive such cases differently depending upon the nature and extent of such damages.

If you believe that you have suffered any type of damages as a result of someone's improper or non-consensual touching, it is important for you to seek the advice of a qualified personal injury attorney to properly assess the nature and extent of both liability and your damages to determine whether or not a viable case exists in which you could obtain compensation for pain and suffering.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.